Disagreement is one of the necessary ingredients for change

Philadelphia Inquirer
Posted on Fri, Jun. 20, 2008
Bush isn't evil or stupid, just a bad manager
He failed to hold others responsible for their mistakes, and he let his admirable vice president do too much.
By Jonathan Last
Inquirer Editorial Board

Reagan's Disciple says that Bush was "particularly enamored" of a class called "human behavior and organization." He also was impressed by the work of management guru Peter Drucker, whose essential principle was that good managers should hire smart workers, give them clear-cut responsibilities, and stay out of their way while holding them accountable.

Drucker's theory of management, controversial when Bush was in grad school, is accepted practice today. And it makes sense - lots of very successful businesses are run just so. But while attractive on its face, Drucker's maxim may not be as compatible with the presidency.

To be sure, some fault lay in the execution: Bush hired many bright, impressive people and delegated an enormous amount of responsibility. But he was maddeningly reluctant to hold subordinates - from Michael Brown to George Tenet to Donald Rumsfeld to Tommy Franks - accountable for their failures. ...

If the vice president is acting as chief of staff, it creates a situation where one cannot have disagreement between the president and the man responsible for running the White House, because there is no practical way to resolve such a disagreement.

And disagreement is one of the necessary ingredients for change. One of the striking features of the Bush administration is a dearth of disagreement among the president's advisers.

Disagreement is not always productive, mind you. But when a situation goes sideways, as the Iraq project did in late 2003 and early 2004, disagreement is vital to finding a solution.